5 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

Tom Eplin’s dancing OMG.

Let's be honest: Tom Eplin's entire life is just one big OMG.

I think Stephen Schnetzer is/was the most embarrassed to be there, followed by Matt Crane.  (Mark Pinter might've been embarrassed, too, but then again, his midlife crisis probably enjoyed hanging out with the younger crowd, lol).

Kim Wells has been looking for this promo for years. It was on YT & then vanished & she loves it. So I just posted it on her FB "Another World - Decades of Drama" group & she is fangirrling. She loves it because it includes all of the men who were on the show at that time. She said Joe said it was cheesy. She says she understands that & my saying how & why it was awful but she still loves it & laughs. OY. Heck, glad you found it as at least one fan has her heart's desire now. 

7 minutes ago, Khan said:

Let's be honest: Tom Eplin's entire life is just one big OMG.

You just said a mouthful. 

Troy Hall (with his frosted tips) is probably just happy to remembered at all, regardless of his moves, given the noxious character of Tito that he played. 

Edited March 3, 20241 yr by j swift

29 minutes ago, j swift said:

Troy Hall (with his frosted tips) is probably just happy to remembered at all, regardless of his moves, given the noxious character of Tito that he played. 

Poor guy, we used to call him, ahem, TightyWhiteys. 

51 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

Poor guy, we used to call him, ahem, TightyWhiteys. 

Was that based on an episode or scene, or just that he would walk like his briefs were too snug? I was about to say that I was surprised that daytime would still let a guy wear briefs, but there was Matt Bomer on GL a few years later.

On 3/1/2024 at 3:07 PM, DRW50 said:

Steve and Rachel were never seen as a supercouple by fans. The idea of him thinking he's still in love with Alice but being drawn to Rachel is compelling, but that wasn't really their history.

To the audience, Steve and Alice were endgame. Mac and Rachel had become endgame as well. Some may argue that creating supercouples whom the audience refuses to see permanently separated limits future plot possibilities, but...that's just the nature of the beast. The idea that Steve would ever romance Rachel again betrayed history and made the whole situation pretty dumb. If, after decades (in terms of storyline time), the characters STILL had not come to an understanding of whom they truly loved and wanted to be with...pffft! They were too old for that cr@p.

On 3/1/2024 at 3:07 PM, DRW50 said:

I do get that the opening was badly out of date by 1996, similar to the tour of Llanview opening in 1992. I will give JFP credit for actually using the cast in her opening, unlike that soft porn muzak opening Gottlieb brought to OLTL. However, I think the style of that opening has ended up seeming much more dated in the long run than the 87-96 version, which isn't really that far off from something of today with Instagram filters or other little tricks.

How I loooooathed that OLTL opening. So generic and pointless, and not even well done. I called it, "Bed sheets in the wind." Yuck. I wish AW had stayed with its original, classic opening. Like ATWT with its globe, TGL with its lighthouse, DAYS with the hourglass, etc., AW's interlocking rings was iconic.

On 3/1/2024 at 4:21 PM, Mona Kane Croft said:

I too liked the casting of David Canary as Steve. But he didn't work as Steve for two reasons:  1. The writing was so bad.  And 2. Canary needed more direction on how to catch Steve's personality and essence.  For example, Canary played Steve as loud and outgoing, often with a big smile on his face, but Steve's personality had always been brooding, quiet, and borderline sad.  I would never have expected Canary to imitate George Reinholt, but Canary should have been coached on Steve's basic personality style.  In my opinion, Canary played Steve like an entirely new character.   Having said all that -- no one will ever convince me that David Canary was not capable of playing Steve Frame.  Canary had the acting skills, but he simply needed more direction and (of course) better writing.

Agreed. No one could reasonably deny Canary's obvious talent, but his interpretation of Steve Frame was quite different from George Reinholt's. It would have been less jarring and more likely to succeed if Canary had been directed to play the character in a more reserved, subdued manner.

On 3/1/2024 at 4:21 PM, Mona Kane Croft said:

I will also take a risk and admit that I actually enjoyed Linda Borgeson as Alice.  This will seem like heresy to some, but I believe Borgeson's appearance and acting style was closer to Jacquie Courtney's than any of the other Alice recasts including Susan Harney.  And I believe Borgeson was certainly the best of the Alice recasts.  I am aware many fans believe she was the worst.  But again -- with better writing, and had TPTB stuck with her, I believe Borgeson would have been accepted as Alice, and Canary as Steve.

While I never accepted any of the recast Alices, I understand your point here. Borgenson had a "stillness" about her which was true to the character of Alice, but with Courtney, I detected a reservoir of deep, turbulent emotion bubbling just below the surface. Still waters run deep. With Borgenson, I personally never felt she had any depth; any passion at all.

It would have been interesting to see how Canary, Borgenson, and the renewed Steve/Alice saga could have turned out with better writing. Probably the best chance would have been to lure Jacquie Courtney back, and then pair her with Canary. Having a beloved familiar face playing the romance might have helped the audience warm up more to the rebooted couple. Of course, we will never know.

 

9 minutes ago, Franko said:

Was that based on an episode or scene, or just that he would walk like his briefs were too snug? I was about to say that I was surprised that daytime would still let a guy wear briefs, but there was Matt Bomer on GL a few years later.

Honest to God, I can't remember. I believe we found out that is what the character wore. Whether that was a sighting or a line about it or someone doing laundry, not sure, but it was like that! One of us really dug him, although of course he was too young for her, but that doesn't prevent leering. The rest of us just made fun of him from that day on. Apparently briefs were totally uncool in our eyes, then. 

And, poor Matt Bomer! I read an account where he told about his GL storyline & it was both hilarious & incredibly sad, at the same time. 

6 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

On 3/1/2024 at 3:07 PM, DRW50 said:

Steve and Rachel were never seen as a supercouple by fans. The idea of him thinking he's still in love with Alice but being drawn to Rachel is compelling, but that wasn't really their history.

To the audience, Steve and Alice were endgame.

I always thought that in a way Rachel - Steve - Alice was a super-triangle. But, Steve & Rachel, nope, not at all, never. Steve & Alice, yes, yes yes. 

1 hour ago, j swift said:

Troy Hall (with his frosted tips) is probably just happy to remembered at all, regardless of his moves, given the noxious character of Tito that he played. 

I would have liked to see Tito redeemed just enough so that Paulina would have kept him as a quasi foster son despite his bad behaviour. Nick had put his nasty ways behind him so Tito could have been a jerk and a screwup with just enough of a real emotional attachment to Paulina to make it interesting. 

I've been looking at episodes of As the World Turns where they still had a thriving population of children, many of whom grew up to have quasi adult storylines. There was a period in the early 80s where Another World had a lot of little kids around who had been born on the show and it’s too bad that really only Amanda and Matthew and Maggie (and I guess I should count Nancy) from that generation grew up. 

I have a question about Julia Shearer. According to the AWHP, Dan and Susan adopted her at the age of 10. She first appeared at age 17 in 1982 played by Kyra Sedgwick. Prior to that Susan had last been in Bay City in 1979 divorcing Dan. Was Julia talked about prior to 1982 or was the adoption a retcon in order to fill in a family void?

1 hour ago, Xanthe said:

Prior to that Susan had last been in Bay City in 1979 divorcing Dan. Was Julia talked about prior to 1982 or was the adoption a retcon in order to fill in a family void?

Susan and Dan went through a divorce but reconciled before departing in 1979.

While I'm not entirely certain, Julia appears to be a retcon. During Susan's involvement in the Olive storyline, which initially led to her breakup with Dan (who subsequently dated Alice), she did not have a child. From what I remember, despite holding a job at the hospital, she moved between staying with Liz and Alice because she was single and unattached.

It's funny to characterize Julia as filling a family void, although I understand what you mean.  When Susan left, Sally was going through her adolescent rebellion and tried to triangulate Susan and Alice.  But, by the time Julia showed up, Sally was in her full ingénue era. So, I guess Liz needed someone to fret over.

Edited March 3, 20241 yr by j swift

9 hours ago, Khan said:

It seems like whenever AW attempted to copy trends, or make itself look more "hip!" and "now!," it always wound up embarrassing itself instead.  IOW, AW was just one soap opera that never could keep up successfully with the times.

We could say that about the P&G shows in general, chasing trends but getting them wrong.

It's all very well to have hip/sexy promos (even if they are wide of the mark) but unless the show holds to that vibe, what's the point?

Maybe AW would have been better off with a more classy/mature promo for their men and keep the dancing/prancing to a couple of younger cast members.

As i posted earlier, had JC stayed on as Alice, audience might have been more receptive to a new Steve or other males cast against her.

9 hours ago, Xanthe said:

I have a question about Julia Shearer. According to the AWHP, Dan and Susan adopted her at the age of 10. She first appeared at age 17 in 1982 played by Kyra Sedgwick. Prior to that Susan had last been in Bay City in 1979 divorcing Dan. Was Julia talked about prior to 1982 or was the adoption a retcon in order to fill in a family void?

Julia was a complete retcon.  She was never mentioned on AW until shortly before she started appearing.   

Edited March 3, 20241 yr by Mona Kane Croft

14 hours ago, j swift said:

It's funny to characterize Julia as filling a family void, although I understand what you mean.  When Susan left, Sally was going through her adolescent rebellion and tried to triangulate Susan and Alice.  But, by the time Julia showed up, Sally was in her full ingénue era. So, I guess Liz needed someone to fret over.

Exactly. Kyra Sedgwick arrived as a bit of a wild child which did seem a bit reminiscent of Sally post-Boston. Was Sally already reformed by then? I guess Jennifer Runyon wasn't committing crimes, just marrying Hobsons and feeling like Steve wasn't as protective of her as he was of Diana.

Did Julia and Sally interact much when Kyra Sedgwick and Jennifer Runyon were in the roles?

 

6 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Julia was a complete retcon.  She was never mentioned on AW until shortly before she started appearing.   

Thanks for the confirmation. If Dan and Susan reconciled in 1979 and then adopted her without discussion offscreen I suppose she could have been SORASed to 17 by 1982. It's not so very different from the timeline for Sally to get pregnant and give up Kevin in order for him to show up as a 5- or 6-year old child in 1983.

46 minutes ago, Xanthe said:

If Dan and Susan reconciled in 1979 and then adopted her without discussion offscreen I suppose she could have been SORASed to 17 by 1982.

And it does fit the characters.  Susan had grown weary of Liz's interference in her marriage, and Dan had dated Alice.  So, who were they going to run and tell in Bay City that they adopted a child in Boston?

22 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

George Reinholt's. It would have been less jarring and more likely to succeed if Canary had been directed to play the character in a more reserved, subdued manner.

Oddly, I don't associate George Reinholt with being either subdued or reserved.  I may be biased because I recall more of his work as Tony on One Life than Steve.  But, to my recollection, he was a bit blustery and prone to table pounding or other physical indicators of his character's emotions.  And his baritone voice felt like a better fit for stage work rather than the intimacy of TV.

Edited March 4, 20241 yr by j swift